Galaxy NOTE 3 versus Canon 5D Mark III (shooting 4K video)

[Andrew Smith]

This is interesting viewing. See if you can pick which footage is from which device in a side by side test.

Galaxy NOTE 3 versus 5D Mark III - 4K in a cell phone! - YouTube

Andrew

[Seth Bloombaum]

Provocative. Intentionally so, I think.

A test that includes a 200% mag that compares resolution between 4k and HD acquisition is stacked, certainly.

And the tester's preoccupation with resolution as a reflection of sharpness shows that he has drunk the 4k koolaid.

Having said that, the Samsung phone has excellent image processing. For casual use, shooting with it provides an image that looks very good out of the camera.

Ignoring the resolution argument, (why are we *not* all shooting 3D, anyways?), the look of the two cameras reminds me of a couple cams we have at school, and my attempts to explain why the Canon XA20 is not always better than the Panasonic HMC150:

The XA20 has a very good look out of the camera. *VERY* good, especially the color processing. The 150 image looks flat by comparison, but, is *SO* good for tweaks in post correction and grading. Not to mention all the physical switches on the 150 that make it straightforward to access all the commonly needed controls, instead of diving into menus on the XA20.

Both XA20 and HMC150 are great... but different in so many ways.

The reviewer concludes that his bright daylight tests show a phone with limited exposure controls will obsolete a fully featured dSLR? Not in my book.

But those phone images are certainly very pretty.

[Noa Put]

At 02:35 you can see that the dynamic range on the Galaxy is much worse then on the 5dIII which already is not known for having a wide DR, for sharpness it is also known the 5DIII is not good, unless you shoot in raw.
Saying that the 5DIII is nearing the end of it's life for video because it can't keep up resolutionwise with the phone is a bit silly statement, in evenly lit surroundings the galaxy does produces some impressive looking footage, but the circumstances have to be right, take it into a dark environment, use it to shoot fast action to stress the codec, shoot in high contrast scenes and the image surely will fall apart, but use it right it can embarrass many current 1080p camera's, just hope that your next client doesn't have such a phone when you show up with your 5dIII :)

[Daniel Epstein]

I actually think the conclusion has some merit but not too worried about it. What other lenses can you use with the Galaxy? Outdoor wide shots in the sun are not the only way to decide on a camera. Probably the least useful way. It does tell me that the codec should not add much to the price of a camera when Canon does come out with 4K. And given BMD and Panasonic can have larger 4K sensors at relatively low prices then there should not be much premium to go to 4K from the current sensor.

[Bryan Cantwell]

Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein

...when Canon does come out with 4K.

The Canon 1Dc does 4K, and has been out for over a year.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855962-REG/Canon_EOS_1D_C_EOS_1D_C_4K_Cinema.html

Not to mention the C500 with 4K RAW...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855975-REG/Canon_EOS_C500_Cinema_EOS.html

[Betsy Moore]

I don't think the reviewer was at all saying the Note 3 makes the Mark III obsolete. He concluded the Mark III is on its way to extinction because: if a cell phone can take better video--under any circumstances--than a pricey dslr, that's bad news for its future--or even its present. Whether you're a pixel-peeper or not--and even if you vow to only exhibit in 1080 for the rest of your life, most everyone is finding that footage shot in 4k and downconverted to HD is much higher quality than stuff shot natively in 1080.

The Mark III was by design never good enough. A couple of years ago, an interviewer point-blank told one of the major executives at Canon that the Mark III's image looked much closer to 720p than 1080 and the exec all but agreed. Didn't poor Magic Lantern have to promise under massive legal threats it would never, ever try to bring out the inherent 4k capabilities of the Mark III's sensor?

As for Canon already having 4k cameras--yeah, they've got arcanely pricey ones, sure--but, to dig out an old marketing class term, they've "skimmed the cream" long enough. Canon's next camera cannot compete with what's already out there if they intentionally cripple it one more time.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

He concluded the Mark III is on its way to extinction because: if a cell phone can take better video--under any circumstances--than a pricey dslr, that's bad news for its future--or even its present. Whether you're a pixel-peeper or not--and even if you vow to only exhibit in 1080 for the rest of your life, most everyone is finding that footage shot in 4k and downconverted to HD is much higher quality than stuff shot natively in 1080.

If that's what he concluded, he's an idiot and his internet privileges should be taken away.

I own a Galaxy S5 which I assume has the same camera as the Note 3.

Shooting stills under optimal conditions in bright light with everything on the same plane? Fantastic for snapshots!

But... moving subjects, complex lighting and anything else that requires finesse?

Forget it!

Unbearably slow "shutter" release, a complete disregard for "set exposure for THIS", and any number of other issues that a REAL camera can handle with ease make the Galaxy S5 nearly useless for anything but snapshot.

Low light performance? HAHAHAHA!

And for video?

Worst Jello Wobble I have ever seen.

So why did I sell my Canon EOS-M when I got my Galaxy? Because I have a camera that sits in my pocket 99.98% of the time now that I didn't pay for. I bought a PHONE for $150 (2 year contract that I would have signed up for anyway) and they threw in a camera and a computer for free.

Somebody PLEASE stop the stupidity of Hyperbole Superhighway!